1 / 13

The CDA Release 3 Specification Stack September 2009

The CDA Release 3 Specification Stack September 2009. HL7 Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF). SAEAF Value Proposition (3): Working Interoperability. D. C. E. Component. Component. B. F. Agree on “Platform -Specific” view. A. Agree on

henriette
Download Presentation

The CDA Release 3 Specification Stack September 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The CDA Release 3 Specification StackSeptember 2009 HL7 Services-Aware Enterprise Architecture Framework (SAEAF)

  2. SAEAF Value Proposition (3):Working Interoperability D C E Component Component B F Agree on “Platform -Specific” view A Agree on “Platform-Independent” view Agree on “Conceptual” view Agree on “Reference” view A -- F: trading partners • Interoperability: the deterministic exchange of data/information in a manner that preserves shared meaning • Two “trading partners” interoperate based on a certified “level of shared compliance” to interoperability specifications/standards • Certified “level of conformance” determine degree of automated interoperability that is possible and/or difficulty of the transformations that are required to enable interoperability

  3. Goal IP differences appear at the PIM level

  4. Conceptual Specifications could Include • Storyboards • Use Cases • Use Case Specifications (Sequence Diagrams) • Use Case Realizations (Activity Diagrams) • Business Operations, including traceability • Focus on Permissions, Obligations, and Restrictions • Business Interfaces • Concepts from Analysis Model • Pointers to Architectural Proof-Of-Concept/Mockup • Wire Frame Diagrams • A discussion of Dependencies • Glossary

  5. Platform-Independent (Logical) Specifications • Provide a technology-independent, common layer of conformance • Contain non-ambiguous specifications of static and behavioural semantics • Focus on refining the computational and informational viewpoints of the Conceptual Specification. • Information models are transformed from analysis model concepts to a implementation constructs • Computational elements focus on detailed designs of the interfaces involved in the appropriate semantic exchanges • Conformance Statements focus on • granularity and composition of the interface specifications • workflow components for applications • without applying the details of a particular technology

  6. Platform-Independent Specification Artifacts Design Guidelines Business Focus Interface Specifications including Operations Implementable Models Choreography and Dynamic Model User Interfaces User Workflows Traceability to other specifications (standardized or local) Transparencies that must be supported by the platform bindings

  7. Platform Definitions • HL7 has created two platform definitions for implementation binding • HL7 V2 • HL7 V3 • Other Platform Definition Models include • XML • Java • J2EE • .NET • WSDL + SOAP • Platforms can combine with other Platforms • For example, XML is essential to SOAP, and may be combined with Java • caGrid using WSDL + SOAP + an XML flavor

  8. Multiple Platform-Specific Specifications Platform – Specific Specification #1 Platform – Independent Specification Platform – Specific Specification #2 Platform – Specific Specification #3 Stack A Stack B Stack C = = =

  9. Platform-Specific Specification Artifacts Platform traceability to defined Transparencies Business Focus and Implemented Policy Impact of the Platform Realizations to Policy Interface Realizations (channels, stubs, bindings, protocols, interceptors, and transformations) User Interfaces Presentation Logic, Session Logic Workflow Realizations of Choreographies, BPL, etc. Operation Signatures Message Schemas

  10. Testable Conformance in a Specification Stack Conformance Statements Conformance Statements Conformance Statements for a given SS are shown in black arrows, Conformance Assertions for a given Technology Binding in red arrows. Abstraction Layers Conceptual Platform Independent Platform Specific Conformance Statements Specification Stack Conformance Statements Technology Binding conformance

  11. Conformance, Compliance, Consistency, Traceability Consistency Conformance Statements source target Traceable Compliance Constrained Conformance Statements source target Compliance Constrained Conformance Statements Conformant Conformance Assertions

  12. Compatibility in a Specification Stack Topic Specification Enterprise / Business Viewpoint Information Viewpoint Computational Viewpoint Engineering Viewpoint Conceptual Conformance Statements source target Compliance Compliance Platform- Independent Compliance Constrained Conformance Statements source target Compliance Platform- Specific Constrained Conformance Statements Conformance Conformance Technology Technology Conformance Assertions Compatibility Conformance Assertions

  13. Goal

More Related